Wednesday, 30 November 2011

Much of the insanity in modern politics is sustained because the alternatives seems impossible: which are essentially two-fold.

When people are behaving badly (I mean in such a way as to destroy the possibility of a Good society) then they must either be coerced into behaving well and/or prevented from behaving badly, which means using whatever sanctions are effective, which may mean severe sanctions (including loss of their freedom of choice);

or they must take the consequences of their actions, which means not getting any assistance from legitimate authority, and these consequences may be severe - up to and including letting people die (eg of hunger or disease) including letting children die.

Since modern, compassionate people cannot make this kind of tough decision (at least not by their chosen methods of decision-making), not wanting to choose and adopt either of these courses of action because the one is illiberal/ authoritarian and the other is cruel/ selfish; then the necessity of choice is denied and destructive mass processes are being allowed to continue until the point when matters are necessarily taken out of the hands of compassionate people by replacing them with non-compassionate people and/ or events are overtaken by natural disaster (famine, epidemic, slaughter).

The choice cannot, therefore, be avoided but only delayed; until such a point that brute necessity supervenes.

21. They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.

*

Is the Christian's obedience which is properly due to Caesar - that is, to a responsible single human being capable of virtue and repentance - automatically transferable to republican government?

And to abstract entities such as 'the democratic process'?

*

A monarch may, in principle, be legitimate; but a process (such as a bureaucratic mechanism of vote-counting) never can be legitimate, since it cannot be responsible and is incapable of virtue and repentance.

The history of Christianity is bound-up with the Roman Empire - indeed the fullness of Christianity probably depends on this Empire, in its lineal manifestations.

Christianity arose within the Empire, and retains a major centre in Rome; yet Rome fell.

Rome fell, however, after having been replaced as Imperial capital by Constantinople (the second Rome) where Christianity reached its apogee in a Christian-Roman-Greek synthesis.

The third Rome was Moscow, descendant of Constantinople.

*

The enemies of Christianity - who conquered the first, second and third Rome - were respectively heathens (i.e barbarians - or the relatively uncivilised), Muslims, and Communists (Leftists); these also being purposive enemies of The Good as conceptualised by Christianity although in different ways.

(Significantly, there remains an alliance, or at least unity of purpose in opposition to Christianity, between the conquerors of the three Romes.)

*

I get the sense that (on earth) there is meant to be Empire, and the Empire is meant to be consciously Roman (i.e. Rome-descended) and Christian.

*

What of the British Empire?

The mythical history of Britain in Anglo Saxon and Medieval times had us descended from Troy - that is pre-Roman.

Then we were part of the Roman Empire, then not. The loss of Empire was a massive psychological (as well as physical) trauma - one fruit of which was the Arthur legend.

Awareness of our membership of the greater Empire of Christendom, with its centre in Constantinople, seems to have been weak in Anglo Saxon Times. Yet the 'Celtic' Christianity which came from Ireland (St Patrick), Scotland and Northumbria was classically Eastern Orthodox in form: it was monastic in focus, and the holy islands Iona and Lindisfarne prefigured Mount Athos.

From a Christian perspective, in terms of sanctity, 'Celtic' (actually Orthodox) Christianity was the high point of history in the British Isles.

Spiritually, therefore, Britain was a part of the Byzantine Empire - and this may have been more explicit than commonly realized, since around ten percent of the population fled from the Rome-backed Norman invasion from whom several thousand made their way to Constantinople and set up an English colony that lasted some centuries.

*

The second wave of 'Roman'-style Catholicism came up from the South East (Kent; St Augustine of Canterbury) - the restoration of linkage to Rome is palpable; and was reinforced by the Norman kings.

However, by the time the British Empire got going, the Reformation had intervened, and the awareness of spiritual links to the Roman Empire had dissipated.

Indeed, it had been replaced by active hostility to Rome and the Holy Roman Empire since Britain had been in constant conflict with Spain, France, Central European powers. Constantinople was gone, there was no link with the Orthodox world.

*

Perhaps that was the major flaw in the British Empire - it 'should' have been a continuation of the Christian Roman Empire, but it was not - and the British state evolved further and further away from any genuine aspiration to a divinely-sanctioned Monarchy.

*

So here we are - The great Byzantine Empire now almost entirely a matter of history, its memory vilified; yet retaining its power to inspire. Our task being to live among its ever-crumbling ruins, loyal to the spiritual ideal.

First blind the people by teaching them to disregard their own experience, the evidence of their senses and observations; then tell them what they ought to know.

Tell them what they ought to know by the authority of specialists and professionals; then tell them that there is no reality, only sensation; and 'therefore' they should collude in their own manipulation by viewing life through the mass media - or rather, to be more accurate, their subjective 'life' becomes a thing wholly-constructed by the mass media.

Once people have ceased to be rooted in experience, your work is done; it matters little what specific brand of nonsense you feed them via the mass media. It is the un-realism of this content which is key.

Once the centrality of experience is abandoned, the scope for error, distortion and partiality is indeed infinite in all directions. There is just one way of being right, but no end of ways for being wrong.

Best of all, although there are a few temporary beneficiaries, everybody loses in the long term.

Monday, 28 November 2011

For Christian reactionaries, thanks to the triumph of the Left and the pervasive effects of political correctness, all powerful institutions have been subverted; so there is nowadays seldom the possibility of willing submission to a virtuous institution - a school, college, government department, shop, factories - almost all are perverted away from their proper functions.

And this applies to the institutional Churches.

(This is not merely the failure of institutionsto do what they are supposed to do, the failure of schools to educate, of scientists to seek truth and so on; but that institutions are not even trying to do what they ought to do but are pursuing nihilistic Leftist goals such as group preferences, multiculturalism, eco-communism etc.).

*

I think everybody needs a denomination, if at all possible, not so much of the human institution but via the human to become part of the mystical body of the Church.

Yet we know that Leftism is fundamentally atheist, and fundamentally evil.

This was perhaps not so obvious in the past, but it is obvious now for those with eyes to see (lack of which eyes is one of the greatest triumphs of the Left).

The Left is openly, explicitly, actively trying to destroy the Good (that is seeking out and subverting and inverting truth beauty and virtue).

Leftism is therefore incompatible with Christianity.

*

Obviously, this has affected the Churches, so that they participate in the warped, and selective priorities and policies of Leftism: this is, indeed, the most obvious and advertized activity in the mainstream Churches.

Such that I think it possible most denominations probably overall do more harm than good to most souls (no matter how much is correct about them - if there be even one fatal flaw it can suffice to turn the whole tendency to evil).

(Recalling that the worst evil is that which most effectively mimics Good. The Nazis and Soviet Communists had many good qualities - yet...)

*

If Leftism and Christianity are impossible, yet we need to participate in the mystical Church - what then?

Joining any denomination requires discernment and caution, a reserve, a degree of holding-back - yet at the same time this is a direct incitement to spiritual pride. This dilemma is unavoidable, but we must nonetheless act.

So, what are the options?

*

My idea - currently - is that each person must decide what is the most important feature (or group of features) of the Church, necessary to sustain their own Christian life, and then focus upon that - because it is extremely unlikely that a perfect (or even mostly-perfect) answer will be available.

For instance, if frequent Holy Communion is most important, only a few Catholic denominations offer that possibility, and of these you will be fortunate if any Church is conveniently situated.

Or it may be the words, the liturgy, the music, or the purity of the teaching (sermons), or group meetings, or evangelism are the mainstay of your Christian life.

*

The situation is so bad for a reactionary Christian that if we can get one, or even two, core requirements to help sustain your Christian life, then we are fortunate indeed.

We should try to be grateful for what is available - and grateful for the work of so many other people which makes anything possible - rather than resentful at the lack of an ideal Church in our vicinity.

Sunday, 27 November 2011

The Great Schism happened around AD1000 when the Eastern and Western Catholic Churches divided (into Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism) - and it happened due to the spirit of questioning.

*

The Creed had for some hundreds of years stated that (in the Holy Trinity) the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father - but the Western Church (continually questioning and reasoning) claimed to have discovered that this should be modified to read Father and the Son.

Leaving aside the strength of arguments - the filioque conflict was caused by the spirit of questioning in the West.

Another factor in the Schism was scholasticism - which was the increasing domination of the Western Church by expert philosophers to fill-in gaps in revelation and natural law by the use of human reason - sometimes to challenge old dogmas, to suggest new extensions of Christianity (beliefs, practices etc).

In sum, a spirit of questioning began to dominate Western Christendom.

*

The East took the mystical path, the path of monasticism, with the clarification of Hesychasm as a method of contemplation, the foundation of Mount Athos and the acceptance of mystery.

Instead of seeking philosophical answers; questions were dealt with by deepening of religious practice.

The idea was that the answers could not be understood by those insufficiently advanced in sanctity, and that it was dangerous to try and provide logical answers to all philosophical queries.

*

Western questioning led to all kinds of things: philosophy, science, technology, economic growth - and of course it led to secularism and the political Left and to nihilism triumphant (the destruction of truth, beauty and virtue).

In a nutshell, the spirit of questioning led to evil: evil triumphant; just as it led to power, comfort, prosperity and the other benefits of modernity.

And since the advent of political correctness, the spirit of questioning has turned against its benefits: clearly the spirit is insatiable, will not rest until nothing of anything remains but questions...

*

So, let us be skeptical about the use of skepticism: let us question the continual promotion of the benefits of questioning...

Let us oppose the spirit of questioning (so often driven by pride and self-assertion and covert aggression) with the spirit of Good.

When we perceive the Good (which we know by instince and Grace) as threatened by the questioning, we need the discernment to cleave to the Good and question why questioning is promoted as intrinsically 'good': wee need to ask - who or what kind of purpose would propose that questioning was an intrinsically beneficial activity?

To ask the question is to answer it: the nihilist. The only person who would elevate questioning above the Good (or who would equate questioning with teh Good) is one who wants to destroy the Good.

Kill it: Death by a thousand pecks.

*

To question is to subvert. Be careful what you question.

*

Or: you are allowed one question.

Be careful who you ask.

Then it is up to you to understand the answer.

(Only when you understand the answer are you allowed another question.)

I have experimented for a week with a blog of aphorisms (listed below) but find that this is not the right medium for my ideas/ notions - it seems I would rather write a mini-essay (or indeed a micro-essay) than a free-standing aphorism.

Nonetheless, I suspect that aphoristic knowledge - not argument, not evidence, not opinion - is probably what we most need now: only it will have to be someone else who provides it!

Tuesday, 22 November 2011

On the one hand we have common sense (spontaneous human instinct), two thousand years of uncontradicted tradition, and divine revelation (as revelation has been understood for two thousand years and by the Holiest people ever known)...

And on the other hand we have hurt feelings; or, at least, the expression (or at least imagined attribution) of humiliation of some individual person or group of persons at being excluded.

...because the mass media provide the two main answers to alienation: distraction and desensitization.

The mass media first distracts with deliberate inversions of the Good: ugliness, depravity and lies, which keeps our minds off the overwhelming fact that modernity depicts life as meaningless, purposeless and isolated;

then the mass media desensitizes us to the hideous, the immoral and the dishonest.

Monday, 21 November 2011

Man is a creature incomplete, maimed; but which can become complete if he acknowledges his incompleteness; and further acknowledges that he can become complete only by Grace of God deriving from the healing completeness of Christ.

*

Jesus Christ was the completion of Man maimed by loss of his primordial supernatural and specific continuous-awareness of God: Christ was the restoration of this primordial awareness in a new completion: which is called Son of God, and is made available to those who recognize the need and its source, and choose to accept the gift and its consequences.

*

Natural Man is the relation with the real nature of things - this is natural Good. But natural Good does not, cannot, restore the lost supernatural and specific awareness of God because it relies on human resources which are radically incomplete.

So Natural Man relying on his own resources is alienated.

Natural Man can only be healed via the recognition that supernatural and specific awareness of God can come only from God.

(This acknowledgement is termed humility. Humility can only come from trust, which can only come from Love - from conviction that God Loves each of us specifically and personally. This is why the Love of God is primary for Christians - the primary commandment without which the others are inoperative. When God is acknowledged but not Loved, there is submission but not humility. And only an incarnate God can be Loved by a human - hence the necessity for Christ.)

***

Note: the above ideas are derived from Charles Williams, especially The Descent of the Dove and the commentary on this in Alice Mary Hadfield's An Introduction to Charles Williams.

Sunday, 20 November 2011

(The Good - Truth, Beauty, Virtue in Unity - is one conception of primary reality)

*

The denial is necessarily in-practice, as well as theoretical.

Thus nihilism is destruction of The Good.

*

Yet the Good cannot be destroyed - only distorted: all things are necessarily motivated by seeking Good - but innately only one or more aspect of Good.

In practice, therefore, operationally instantiated: nihilism is the purposive destruction of The Good in Unity in pursuit of a partial Good.

*

(For instance, modern nihilism is characteristically the destruction of Truth, Beauty and all virtues but one: kindness. In sum, modern nihilism is constructive of a world of ugliness and lies and vice in the name of a single Good, namely kindness - the desire to alleviate suffering, misery, pain: at any price and with any consequence. Most past nihilisms have been less complete than modern; partial but with a larger number of Goods.)

Friday, 18 November 2011

I think I understand what Zen is trying to achieve, I know of the method/s by which it might plausibly be attained, and I believe that at least some people have successfully reached this objective.

But what I do not understand is this: why would anyone want it?

Suppose Zen enlightenment was available at a shop and for a reasonable price - but was, of course, non-returnable: who would buy?

*

The pure quest for 'enlightenment' seems nothing more than a very long and uncertain path to analgesia - and there are swifter and surer paths to the alleviation of pain such as intoxication, sleep or suicide (unless further factors are introduced, like the immortality of the soul, and then we have gone beyond Zen).

No detail is too small for the notice of Tom Bombadil, yet he observes the whole world unfold and die.

He observes from a tiny and obscure corner far away from what appears to be the centre; and yet not with resentment nor with provincial pride, but with unquestioning faith that this is his place, his role.

Tuesday, 22 November 2011

Aside from its power and speed hence cheapness; the pneumatic drill is in every way inferior to the pickaxe as a way of breaking through roads and paths.

It is just about the noisiest, most intrusive piece of technology ever devised. One pneumatic drill in the city may render life stressed and painful for many thousands of people in a radius of hundreds of yards

Yet the pneumatic drill has not been superseded - nor is the modern drill (often mounted on a small digger) any quieter or less frequently used than it was in the past. It is a rare day when I am not seriously disturbed by a pneumatic drill while at work.

(Admittedly, part of this is the socialist notion of creating economic 'prosperity' by paying armies of navvies laboriously to drill holes in roads and paths, fiddling with some utilities, filling them in and re-surfacing such as to withstand the heaviest goods vehicles for five years continuous usage, then re-drilling them a fortnight later.)

...Sorry, I've got to break off this post - a pneumatic drill has just started and I need to close the window, again.

Tuesday, 15 November 2011

Glenn Gould: I don't know what the effective ratio would be, but I've always had some sort of intuition that for every hour you spend in the company of other human beings, you need "x" number of hours alone. Now, what "x" represents I don't really know; it might be two and seven-eighths or seven and two-eighths, but it is a substantial ratio.

Monday, 14 November 2011

I said in yesterday's post: "modern Evil is characterized and made distinctive by an historically vast and pervasive expansion of The World - of Negligence."

This is why mainstream public discourse can be insane (not why modern society is insane - that is down to secular Leftism - but why or how it is that the insanity is not self-correcting).

*

What would it take to restore a sense of reality to mainstream public discourse? - the conviction that there is a reality, that reality is really real whatever we may say or think about it.

Some pretty extreme things have happened, such as communism (which is indeed still happening) yet reality is still denied.

What, then would it take - is anything big enough?

The answer is no, nothing is big enough that the mass media could not absorb it and normal unreality be resumed within an obscenely short period of days.

*
Reality cannot be restored at a population level unless and until the mass media has collapsed.

In the meantime, we must work with individuals, with souls.

At a personal level, for some people, sometimes something happens (it need not be nasty, but often is) such that reality becomes undeniable; and that individual may make a decision to acknowledge reality.

*

Reality is not a revelation - it is a grasp of the human condition as something given (not made by humans or human minds, not a framing device).

The condition of reality is what it is but our response to it is a matter of will and choice.

And recognition of reality involves recognizing that our will and choice are not our own, but are caused and corrupted (unless assisted from outwith themselves).

So that reality and our recognition that there is reality are both givens.

World/ negligence = Distractions. Focusing on Life rather than reality; on status, comfort and pleasure rather than sanctification, deification, salvation.

*

Devil/ deliberate fault = choosing to serve as a tool of purposive evil, which is nihilism, which is denial of reality, which is practiced by

systematic destruction of The Good

(i.e. destruction of Truth, Beauty and Virtue and their Unity by denial, subversion and inversion).

*

Three sources of Evil.

The Flesh is pretty much a given factor for an individual, for humanity.

The World is much more powerful in the West now than it has ever been anywhere in human history.

The Devil is an unknown quantity, but as C.S Lewis says in Screwtape Letters:

There are two equal and opposite errors into which our race can fall about the devils. One is to disbelieve in their existence. The other is to believe, and to feel an excessive and unhealthy interest in them. They themselves are equally pleased by both errors and hail a materialist or a magician with the same delight.

*

Of course, all these sources of Evil are linked in a unity: but modern Evil is characterized and made distinctive by an historically vast and pervasive expansion of The World - of Negligence.

World/ negligence = Distractions. Focusing on Life rather than reality; on status, comfort and pleasure rather than sanctification, deification, salvation.

*

Devil/ deliberate fault = choosing to serve as a tool of purposive evil, which is nihilism, which is denial of reality, which is practiced by

systematic destruction of The Good

(i.e. destruction of Truth, Beauty and Virtue and their Unity by denial, subversion and inversion).

*

Three sources of Evil.

The Flesh is pretty much a given factor for an individual, for humanity.

The World is much more powerful in the West now than it has ever been anywhere in human history.

The Devil is an unknown quantity, but as C.S Lewis says in Screwtape Letters:

There are two equal and opposite errors into which our race can fall about the devils. One is to disbelieve in their existence. The other is to believe, and to feel an excessive and unhealthy interest in them. They themselves are equally pleased by both errors and hail a materialist or a magician with the same delight.

*

Of course, all these sources of Evil are linked in a unity: but modern Evil is characterized and made distinctive by an historically vast and pervasive expansion of The World - of Negligence.

Saturday, 12 November 2011

When I was working in the area of Niiklas Luhmann's systems theory+, I devised a handy way of conceptualizing the complexity of a system - which was as the ratio of internal communications within a system, divided by the amount of communication between a system and its environment.

This can be applied to thinking:

the complexity of cognition would then be a ratio of an organism's internal cognitive activity over the amount of communication between the organism and its environment (including other organisms).

*

If cognition is measured using time, then this roughly translates to:

Time thinking/ Time communicating

*

Time spent thinking is mostly solitary.

Time spent in communicating includes conversation and other social interactions, the media and news, and also the learning of new information etc (including learning of all types including scholarship, including writing) and the expounding of information (including teaching).

*

This means that an increase in time spent in social interaction, in contact with the media and inlearning new stuff (time in-putting data)will tend to simplify thought unless the amount of (mostly solitary) thinking time is proportionately increased.

*

This explains why the European Middle Ages attained the highest complexity of coherent abstract thought (Thomas Aquinas and the environment in which he operated) - since there were few books, no mass media, 'monastic' seclusion - and in general a great deal of time spent thinking relative to the amount of stuff flowing into and out-of the mind.

*

This explains why the internet has not led to any advances in genuine understanding, since the millions-fold expansion in the amount of data (plus increased social interaction via electronic media, plus increased volume and usage of the mass media) have led to an equally vast simplification of cognition.

The average modern human mind is now more like a relay station than a brain - performing just a few quick and simple processes on a truly massive flow-through of data.

This applies equally, or especially, to intellectuals who are plugged-into oceans of data in a way never before possible.

When all (almost all) intellectual output is simply a summary of un-assimilated input, as we see all around; then we can perceive that intellectual processing has become grossly simplified.

The 'sound bite' is simply a literal transcription of the (largest) unit of modern thinking.

*

This explains (in general terms) the importance of sleep - when the mind becomes more-or-less cut off from the environments and cognitive processing is almost-wholly internal.

*

To improve the complexity of cognitive processing is, however, a simple matter: more time alone and thinking, less time socializing and in-putting.

Two great favourites of mine are Merlin the wizard (whose legends are all around Britain, including the nearby England-Scotland borders) and St Cuthbert the Wonderworker (who also lived fairly near to me on the island of Lindisfarne, and is still quite well remembered locally - at least in the names of places and institutions)-

There is, of course, no remotely definitive story of King Arthur - since it is the dominant piece of genuine 'folk-lore' of England (even though British rather than English - having pretty much displaced the specifically English folk hero of Robin Hood). Like everybody, I have encountered innumerable versions of the Arthurian legends.

But the general character of Merlin is pretty consistent: a powerful wizard: kindly, broadly well-meaning, but irritable and prone to sarcasm - and morally ambiguous.

Merlin is essential to the creation and survival of the Good kingdom and the Good King; yet he is a worldly figure: he does dubious enchantments for dubious reasons (e.g. the shape-shifting spell to satisfy the King Uther's rapacious lust, leading to the birth of Arthur).

And, in many versions, Merlin comes to a sticky end - often by falling in love with a beautiful but wicked enchantress (e.g. Nimue or Vivienne) and teaching her his secrets - as a result Merlin may be imprisoned forever (or for centuries) in a tree, or crystal cave.

In other versions Merlin became a military leader, but was defeated, escaped into the wilderness to die as a raving lunatic bewailing his loss of power and prestige.

While Merlin's damnation is not definite, and repentance and salvation is not necessarily ruled-out - at best the possibility is suspended.

*

St Cuthbert, by contrast, is perhaps the holiest Saint of England.

And, by contrast with the garbled legends of Merlin, Cuthbert's principal biographer was the first and one of the greatest English historians: The Venerable Bede of Jarrow and Monkwearmouth.

*

Cuthbert was a monk (later and briefly a Bishop): an extreme ascetic, who prepared for his miracle-working years by many years of disciplined prayer, learning by heart of scriptures, fasting, vigils (staying up all night praying), participation in Church rituals and other hardships.

St Cuthbert, in contrast with Merlin, was one of those Saints who were regarded as having lived both in Heaven and on Earth in his later years, he had a glorious and inspiring death and went (it is presumed) to the high place prepared for him.

Cuthbert was immediately widely venerated, many Churches were founded in his name, and his memory and scattered relics were the subject of marvellous stories and the attributed cause of numerous miracles.

A long distance footpath called St Cuthbert's Way was recently created to trace the important places of his life and the route of his posthumous remains:

Yet, for moderns, the powerful but flawed and ultimately tragic figure of Merlin seems much more exciting than Cuthbert.

The hints (and more than hints) of intoxicating and depraved lust which were Merlin's downfall, and which he seemed to embrace either helplessly or willingly, are just the kind of thing to strike a chord in our era.

The comparison illustrates a change of ethos, and a scaling-down of ambition. St Cuthbert's example is so far above anything attainable to us moderns that it is almost intimidating rather than inspiring to weak and corrupt individuals such as myself!

*

The comparison also illustrates the Eastern Orthodox understanding of miracles, magic and wonders.

The Orthodox belief is that miracles and magic are real and accessible, but hazardous - because they can be achieved with either divine/ angelic or demonic assistance (and because demons are deceptive and can masquerade as angels).

Merlin was certainly attributed with advanced magical powers and in some version was actually demonic in origin - e.g. with a demon father magically inseminating a virgin mother, with the intention of producing an Antichrist; but then having been blessed and baptized in the womb by a Saint, to emerging as the morally ambiguous - but broadly benign - trickster figure we know.

At any rate, it would be expected that some, at least, of Merlin's powers were demonic rather than divine; and that the demons exacted the usual payments.

*

A traditional Orthodox view would probably be that Merlin came to grief in using magic because he was (ultimately) proud and lustful rather than humble and loving; because he sought and served power rather than disinterested knowledge; and insofar as he did not repent his pride and lust.

(Repentance not being the same as regret, or shame, or wishing things had turned-out otherwise.)

While St Cuthbert had - by long ascetic preparation - attained the necessary humility and love to be able (after this was attained, not before) to be permitted to deploy divine and angelic powers in the service of Good.

This seems to be the essential difference between a Saintly Wonderworker and a wizard like Merlin - and the (non-Saintly) White wizard's goodness is seen as inevitably tenuous, and mixed; and the temptation to darkness un-ceasing and eventually irresistible.